The right to a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, applicable to all criminal prosecutions regardless of the gravity of the offence, necessitating that courts balance societal security interests with the individual's right to timely adjudication.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner by way of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the seeks issuance of appropriate directions commanding the learned Trial Court/Special Court to conclude the trial arising out of FIR No. 03/2020 dated 30.03.2020 registered at Police Station Bomai for offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 07 and 427 IPC, within a time-bound period.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 30.03.2020 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court on 10.10.2020. Charges were framed on 29.03.2021. It is pleaded that though the prosecution had cited around 20 witnesses, statements of several witnesses already stand recorded and according to the petitioner, the prosecution evidence has substantially progressed, yet the trial is not being conducted on day-to-day basis as contemplated under law.

3. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has remained in custody since the date of his arrest and prolonged incarceration coupled with delay in conclusion of trial amounts to violation of his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act mandates that trials by Special Courts are to be conducted on day-to-day basis and are to be accorded precedence over other cases. It is contended that despite the statutory mandate and repeated pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasizing expeditious disposal of criminal trials involving undertrial prisoners, the proceedings in the present case are moving at a slow pace.

5. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussain and another vs. Union of India , AIR 2017 SC 1362, Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar , (1979) 3 SCC 532, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak , (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka , (2002) 4 SCC 578 to contend that speedy trial is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. Heard and Considered

7. This Court, having regard to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious conclusion of trial, and in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition at the threshold.

8. The core issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether prolonged pendency of trial in the present case, despite the petitioner remaining in judicial custody for a considerable period of time, amounts to infringement of the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, ought to issue appropriate directions for expeditious conclusion of trial.

9. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it becomes necessary to reiterate that the right to speedy trial is no longer res integra. It stands crystallized as a constitutional guarantee flowing directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.